Show them NASA's Astrobiology Institute (studies abiogenesis chemistry, so we can look for places that could have had it happen elsewhere) and the National Institutes of Health, which has dozens of peer-reviewed articles on the subject.

I was grinding my teeth when they kept asserting that they think Panspermia is what science considers the most likely scenario (the leading idea is actually just that comets brought some of the materials, including water and most of the organics, to the earth's oceans, and that conditions in the ocean allowed for the components to come together-- not only possible but probable, given a few million years in the right conditions and a few billion reactions per year per square meter), and then saying "that's just so unlikely!" The doctor alone should surely be aware that there are roughly [Edit: it's 750,000 ] bacteria per milliliter of saliva, so given enough time and right conditions, we're talking almost a million such reactions (if we're talking "at the size of a bacterium"; there are of course millions in each of those volumes, to operate a cell) in every mL of water in my mouth... and the amount of water around those vents is likely a bit more than the amount of saliva. In short, it's insane that they think it's "unlikely". If it's possible, which the recent chemistry seems to suggest that it is, then it is inevitable.

Every other one of their other arguments are "puddle saying what a nice pothole" arguments. I really found their repeated insistence on having *this* universe, just as it is, as though the conclusion was foregone, to be quite grating.

Gotta stop letting them use the term "chance" to refer to natural processes. Every single thing that has ever happened, ever, is "chance", according to that broad definition. But chemistry is not "chance", if the materials are there and the energy for the reaction is available. It's the opposite of chance: chemistry is so predictable that we use it to make medicines that we put into our body (such as, say, aspirin). We can make aspirin every time in the same pure proportions only because it's not chance. They're effectively just using the term to denigrate the idea that we come from natural causes.

Which is hilarious, because they use the teleological and Kalam arguments, which effectively state: "every caused thing must have a cause", an argument based entirely on the non-randomness of physics. If, as Krauss has suggested in his work, we do indeed get randomness at the most basic level of atomic physics (instead of "nothingness"), then the irony is that their premise is wrong at both ends! It is not necessarily a given that something must come from something, at the origin of the universe (fundamental physics) level, and it is not true that when chemicals come together to form bio-molecules that it is "chance", any more than it is when we make aspirin in a test tube.

They presume that chemistry is just wild randomness, but that the universe's creation must proceed according to fixed laws which operate outside the universe as they do on the inside, despite evidence that even our own laws break down as we approach the barrier of the Planck length, but that chemistry at the macro level is statistically average enough to produce predictable results. I think you could get them to admit that their argument breaks down when one realizes that reality is the opposite of their base presuppositions.

ETA: Ask them, "How do we make the leap from 'Everything has a cause' to 'The First Cause is a transcendent being' without jumping from the level of 'everything that is caused has a natural cause' to 'except this first thing we can detect, which must have a supernatural rather than a natural cause' without just saying it was magic?"

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

Oh, and interestingly enough, science may have pinned down what the energy source was for those protocells. I recall one of the hosts mentioned that they "couldn't solve" the source of energy, and thought it might be some sort of chemical reaction which we were blindly asserting but could not discover.

A question you could ask them is how far back into the "Well we just don't know so therefore God" argument they wish to go. After we solve the energy source issue, then the creation of cells issue, and so on... is their God going to retreat into nothingness as they are forced to admit, at each stage, "Well okay so we know what that is and it was natural, not God".

After all, we have already pushed the church back on issues that it "knew" had to be where God was hiding, only to find they were actually just natural causes. How far does that regress go?

Oh, by the way, I listened to the whole thing. You're well spoken and I really enjoyed hearing all that. One word of caution, though: you tend to say "Yeah" while you're listening to their arguments, as you absorb each premise they're throwing out, which often makes it sound like you're agreeing with them on points with which you choose not to engage, yet with which they should not be allowed to get away if you had more time.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

I've given your replies a lot of thought (I even slept on it (had a nightmare involving being eaten by rodents (but that's not important right now))).

A few things:

a) Approach.
Tempting though it is to change tactic and offer actual evidence (as you provided), this will take me off the path of my first objective. I made a tactical error when mentioning the hydro-thermal vents and nearly fell down that rabbit hole. As soon as I offer an alternative explanation, I accept the burden of proof for that explanation. I can go as far as saying that I am (personally) comfortable with naturalistic explanation xyz but I want to avoid going to the next step of saying "and this is why you have to believe this too".

b) "Chance"
Agreed. At one point, I think, I explicitly said it was not chance but rather a process or a continuum.
I think this 747-junk yard version of chance is something deeply ingrained in the believers' psyche and I'll have to find a way to unpick this later. I already have something planned for one of the subsequent topics but on reflection, I think you are right, I will have to be a little less subtle.

c) Pointing out their fallacies e.g. "how small is the gap for your god now?
Yup and nope.
This is part of my second objective ... to identify fallacies from an epistemological perspective, in particular 'incredulity' --> faith.
What I'm trying to avoid is naming those fallacies. That would lead to "you're wrong because..." and with that is a risk of sidetracking down a side track. I'm playing the role of naive naturalist for their (small) audience and I don't want to get too technical (I confess that's a struggle for me).

d) "Yeah"
Point taken. I'm keen to keep the conversation congenial and this requires demonstrating, at the least, comprehension ("I understand your point" etc.) of the believers' worldview. Note that both Doug and Andy are doing the same and even laughing at my bad jokes (they are at least acknowledging if not always comprehending).
I agree with your assessment, however, so I'll have to find a better way of showing comprehension without giving the impression of agreeing.

(28-11-2016 06:00 AM)DLJ Wrote: how small is the gap for your god now?

I like it. Think I could make some cash fleecing some sheep with a "How I found God at the end of a (ε, δ) proof - God as the Limit of the Gaps" book. I could use Euler's identity for the cover art with the subtitle Behold the Face of God

There's cash to be made here MuffinStuffin, you do the cover art and I'll write the proof. Let's do this you impoverished gay virgin artistic Maori bastard.